Skip to comments.Hiroshima, Nagasaki to pitch for 2020 Olympics
Posted on 10/11/2009 9:12:32 AM PDT by traumer
click here to read article
Harry Truman was evil?
wow .. that’s a shocker.
I agree about moving the Olympics to Greece permanently.
Well....most politicians are evil by their very nature but the Roosevelt/Truman New Dealers were more evil than most.
I once thought as you on this, but then something happened....I grew up and read the other side of the story.
Japan is not innocent in this endevour. You can blame their imperial pride and liberal Monday morning quarterbacking.
It’s like if the US Army was on the boarder of Germany and the Germans said, “Okay, we’ll surrender...but we get to keep Hitler and he’s still in charge.” Ain’t gonna happen boyo.
Think about it...
So, got the guts to see this video?????
You need to be more assertive! Quit being such a shrinking violet.
>>> I think it WAS evil to drop the bombs... <<<
so, you’re reverting to “nanny-nanny-nanny boo boo” or “I know you are but what am I?” replies?
Guess I win :)
So, got the guts to see the video?
Now....that's an alternative history if I ever saw one. The German generals repeatedly tried to kill Hitler but Roosevelt, who was totally committed to the unconditional surrender theory for both Germany and Japan, refused to give them any moral support. He even joked about it when they were horribly executed! FDR held to the theory that they were aristocrats and thus were just as evil as Hitler.
By contrast, there was probably not a single Japanese general or admiral who wanted to overthrow the emperor. Despite this, FDR, Henry Wallace, and his bitter end New Dealer "reformers" applied the same theory for both the emperor and Hitler. Had he lived, FDR, in contrast to Truman, would have insisted that the emperor not only be removed but executed.
Whatever you say. Just don't turn over the checker-board like you did last time!
We are all inherently evil, singling out politicians seems a bit odd .. who votes for the ninnies?
I think the 20,000 were projections of the first day casualties based on our previous amphibious landings.
By 2020, Tel Aviv will probably qualify also ....
She always looked like that.
By contrast, there was probably not a single Japanese general or admiral who wanted to overthrow the emperor
Shaking head on that one.
ahhhh....actually, officers tried to stage a coupe to prevent the Emperor from issuing the surrender broacast. Seems there were plenty who were willing to sacrifise the entire population.
Shows how FANATICAL they were.
Guess what, the war is over. Japs surrendered, Fritz is dead and both are democratic allies of the free world.
War’s a bitch ain’t it? Guess they shouldn’t had started it because it opens door there weren’re ready for.
>>> Truman was not locked into this false dichotmy. There was always a third choice: a conditional surrender. The chief sticking point from beginning to end was the Japanese insistence that they keep the emperor. Prior to the dropping of the bombs, however, the Truman administration summarily rejected pursuing that option. Even after the dropping of the second bomb, the Japanese STILL insisted on this condition. <<<
Truman had several choices; for example, he could have continued the blockade of the Japanese islands and starved the Japanese out. Luckily for the Japanese and for us, that option was not chosen.
However, speaking of “false dichotomies,” the one you make between unconditional surrender/conditional surrender certainly counts as one. Even though US policy since Cairo had been that of unconditional surrender, all parties knew that there were obvious conditions being presented to the Japanese Imperial Gov’t by the US (the wonders of diplomatic language never cease to amaze me). And this was true up to the Potsdam Declaration of 26 July 1945.
>>> Had he pursued the option of a conditional at the beginning, he could have avoided both the mass slaughter of innocents AND an invasion. <<<
Both FDR and Truman pursued surrender with conditions. The Japanese Imperial Gov’t didn’t like those conditions, and prepared for a “final conflict” on the Japanese home islands. Yes, the deaths at Tokyo, Horishima, and Nagasaki could have been avoided — if the Japanese had surrendered earlier instead of intentionally sacrificing their “subjects” in an attempt to gain a better post-war outcome.
>>> Even if we assume that you are right, however, dropping the bombs would still be evil. Under the long established rules of war it is immoral to INTENTIONALLY target babies, little old ladies, and other non-combatants. Collateral damange is unavoidable but intentional targeting is beyond the rules of war. If an enemy did it to us or our allies during war. we would not hesitate to later prosecute them for war crimes. <<<
If the Japanese Imperial Gov’t didn’t want us to target cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they should have made sure that these cities didn’t possess war factories, naval shipping yards and army barracks. Possession of such facilities made these cities legitimate targets for attack given the rules of war followed at the time.
There was NO intentional attack on Japanese civilians. Your SLANDER of US Army forces who carried out the aerial attack on Japan is reprehensible.
>>> As a sidelight, let me point out the Nagasaki was the heart of traditional Japanese Christianity. The Christians had held on to their faith despite tremdendous pressure for hundreds of years....only to be slaughtered by fellow Christians. <<<
As another sidelight, there used to be a certain nutter on FR who would post that Truman intentionally targeted the Christians of Nagasaki when that city was nuked. Something about Truman being part of some Freemason conspiracy against Christians, I seem to recall. You wouldn’t be part of an attempt to revive an old nutter tradition, would you?
Why do you continue to regurgitate old lying Soviet agitprop about the Pacific War (from the old Soviet toadies like Gar Alperovitz)? The old Soviet Union’s been gone for almost 20 years.
>>> It didnt save a single life. An invasion could have been avoided agreed to let the Japanese keep the emperor. <<<
An invasion, and a lot of aerial bombing could have been avoided if the Japanese Imperial Govt’ had surrendered. Stop trying to shift the blame.
>>> The emperor was very much an issue. To New Deal hardliners, he (and all he represented) the main source of the problem and had to be totally destroyed. If it was really a non-issue the U.S. would have agreed at the outset to a conditional surrender. <<<
Oh, so now it’s a New Dealer conspiracy to slaughter Japanese civilians? How novel... and how irrelevant and preposterous.
It was the NEOCONS Kirk. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.